Wikipedia:Peer review/Fish Heads Fugue and Other Tales for Twilight/archive1

Fish Heads Fugue and Other Tales for Twilight

Just created this article over the last few weeks and am curious to get an outside opinion on it. Would like to nominate for GA, if others think that it's up to snuff. The article is fairly short, but considering that it's about a short film, length probably isn't much of an issue. The important points are covered. A little more production info would be nice, but I just don't think that are any more readily accessible sources to draw from, so hopefully what's included will suffice. the Thanks, Jpcase (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the article is going to need more development, first, before it is ready for a GA review. Some GA reviewers might find the topic to be too obscure for a GA article. I haven't had a chance to look at it in detail yet, but from a glace I see some issues that would need to be addressed:

• Lead section (heading): Generally speaking, red links tend to look out of place in a GA or FA article, particularly in the beginning. That is not to say that every name mentioned in the article has to have a blue link, but the beginning of an article is the most critical place to set the tone. I would recommend that you create quality articles on Lauren Indovina and Lindsey Mayer-Beug. Right away, that would help establish the topic in some reviewers minds as potentially worthy of a GA article. The wording in the heading is going to have to be developed a bit further and the statements there about the reception don't make the topic sound interesting--there needs to be a better way in the heading of describing the critical response--it has to be accurate, of course, but just saying that "critical response has been generally favorable..." just doesn't seem quite sufficient. What is it about the piece that critics have deemed to be noteworthy and important, groundbreaking or at least interesting?

• Very little is said about background and production (a lot more is needed): Much more needs to be said about the historical background and making of the film. While there is a Production section here, it is way too short. If reviewers are to consider this worth GA, then there is going to have to be enough said in sources to generate a lengthy and thorough discussion of background and production--GA articles are expected to be in-depth (and about in-depth topics). In my mind, the story of how a film or piece of work was created is by far the most important thing in an article of this kind and (esp. in a GA article), there should be a few lengthy sections dealing with all of those facets--and this kind of article is going to have to get up to at least 45-50 citations from reliable sources in order to be considered GA material. While there should, indeed, be a good plot summary (and the one here is of sufficient length), the text devoted to the background/production in a GA article should be at least three-to-four (maybe even five.. six) times longer that that devoted to a sufficiently detailed discussion of plot. Remember that most readers want to learn the story about the creation of a piece--most people are allergic to plot giveaways (and usually skip over the Plot section). Detailed plot summaries have to be there, but other things are way more important.

• Reception: You could, maybe, put a star-rating box in the reception section, as I have seen in other articles of this type.

Those are just a few first thoughts, but I need to comb though the article and look at it and its sources in detail. I hope that you can find a way to get it to GA level (if that is possible for this topic). It won't be easy, but I do wish you good luck. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Garagepunk66: Thanks for the notes! I'll try to incorporate your advice to whatever extent possible. Like I said though, there aren't many more sources to draw from. And while I do understand that the dearth of coverage could be an obstacle on the path toward GA, there is at least some precedent for short articles passing, when those articles have been focused on short films - see Lupo the Butcher, which has slightly more production info, but not quite as much for reception. Even ignoring the plot sections, Fish Heads Fugue and Other Tales for Twilight is, I think, a little bit longer overall. The Lupo article also has twenty fewer references than Fish Heads Fugue. I'm not sure that number of references should matter anyway, nor level of obscurity, so long as the GNG has been satisfied. That said, I understand how even just a few more sentences in the production section could go a long way toward improving the article. Believe me, I've searched extensively, even using the Way Back Machine. There are a couple more sources that may be of some use, although I haven't had a chance to check them out yet (they're offline). Other than those, I feel that I've utilized pretty much everything that reputable sources have published about the topic. If that means then, that the topic simply can't attain GA status, then that would be disappointing, but I could accept that. Still, in my personal view, coverage expectations should vary somewhat, based upon the context of what is being written about.

As for reception information, I've added a brief statement to the lead, explaining what critics liked about the film. If you have any ideas of your own on ways to expand the lead, then I'm happy to incorporate them. A star-rating box wouldn't be possible, as none of the reviews gave stars, and an "Accolades" section is standard, as outlined at WP:Manual of Style/Film.

What are your thoughts on the prose? I'm not a very confident writer and would like to know whether the plot section is okay or if it still needs some work. Thanks again for giving your review! --Jpcase (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I have not yet had a chance to read it over carefully, but from the first glance things looked decent enough prose-wise. I could go back and comb through it in more detail and tell you if I see any issues there. And, I realize that there have been really short film articles that slipped through GA in the past, but those are lucky cases. Often articles of that type are vulnerable to being subjected to re-evaluation, and can be in danger of losing their GA. It is usually best to pick an article to work on that you think has the potential to become GA, and then after expanding to the point where you think it is ready, then have it nominated. But, even on non-GA articles you write, you usually want to make them the best that they can be for the sake of doing justice to the topics you have covered. There are many decent and keep-worthy articles that are not GA contenders, just simply because there aren't enough sources to get the article up to GA. That may be what the limiting factor is here for this article. But, you might find some good sources that yield a lot of info. You never know--a really good magazine article might come out or an incredible profile in a newspaper. In addition to writing tie-in articles on Lauren Indovina and Lindsey Mayer-Beug, you could include some of their biographical info. about them in this article--particularly biographical details leading up to this movie or connected to it. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Garagepunk66: I may give GA a shot anyway...but you've given me something to think about. Perhaps you're right, and the article is simply too short. Right now, I'm still looking for an interview with the film's directors that was conducted by 3D World magazine. This archived webpage [1] makes mention of the interview, but so far, I haven't been able to find any webpage (even on the WayBack Machine) containing the actual contents of the interview. The publisher doesn't sell back issues from that long ago (the particular issue that I'm looking for was published in May 2006), and I haven't been able to find used copies on eBay, Amazon, or any other online retailer. So it's turned into quite the hunt! Hopefully, something will turn up eventually. I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Archive_29#3D World magazine #77 (May 2006) - Movers and Shakers and have contacted various potential leads. We'll see what happens.

As for creating articles on Indovina and Mayer-Beug, I may try to do so at some point. But in all honesty, their individual notability, separate from the film, is rather small - Fish Heads Fugue is the only "film" that either of them have ever directed. Both of them have since gone into advertising. In the past decade, Indovina has mostly worked on television commercials, although she also did the character design on an Emmy-award-winning music video for The Raveonettes [2] [3] (who knew that music videos were eligible for the Emmys?) Mayer-Beug has also done some commercial and music video work, in addition to illustrating the covers for a few novels and being one of the animators to work on the opening title sequence of Across the Universe. Her entire portfolio can be seen here [4] In my personal view, I would say that they probably pass the GNG, but only barely. I agree that adding some biographical information on them to this article would be a pretty good idea, but currently, I don't have access to very much. Mayer-Beug's mother, Carolyn Beug, has her own Wikipedia page - she was an award-winning music video director herself and died in the 9/11 attacks, while returning from taking Lindsey to college. Something could perhaps be said about that in the article, if you think it's worth noting. The only personal information on Indovina and Mayer-Beug that actually relates to Fish Heads Fugue would be the brief comments included in this reference [5]. I tried incorporating this info into the article earlier, but couldn't quite figure out how to best phrase it. I may give it another go though. --Jpcase (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that, in time, it may become possible to find more sources to build up the background and bio--all it will really take is a couple of really good write-ups which go into the background... And, you can look for things written about Lauren Indovina and Lindsey Mayer-Beug--that could do a lot to help build up the bio. Look for sources that relate the context of the time period to the film--that can help. You cab be creative in scouting articles--trying to access info. By the way, I'm sure that it is a terrific film and I'd like to see it. Like so many things that are obscure, it has not received enough attention in the media--but hopefully time will correct that oversight. So, I wish you good luck. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Garagepunk66: Unfortunately, I don't think that there's anything more to be found online - unless there are some articles hiding behind paywalls that simply aren't appearing in Google search results. But hopefully the 3D World magazine will turn up.

It certainly is an interesting film, and worth watching if you enjoy creative design work - just don't ask me to explain it to you, haha. ;) Actually, you can watch it for free on Indovina's official website, here - scroll all the way down towards the bottom of the page, past all of the screenshots and gifs, until you see the image that I've included in the infobox (you'll see it twice; the first time is a simple screenshot, but the second time, you'll have an option to play the entire film).

I've expanded the production section a little bit, using the source that I linked to in the end of my last comment. I've also added a couple sentences about Mayer-Beug's mother, although I'm not entirely sure whether or not this is relevant enough for inclusion. If you have the time to give the section another look over, let me know what you think of the additions! I really appreciate all of the time that you've taken in following up with me! :) --Jpcase (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Garagepunk66: I've managed to squeeze a little bit more out of the existing sources. The 9/11 information is, I think, a little more justified now - the film is actually dedicated to Carolyn Beug and her mother, Mary Alice Wahlstrom (who also died in the attacks). The Production section is still on the short side, but quite a bit longer than it had been. Thanks for pushing me to keep at it! I might have let some of those details slip by otherwise. --Jpcase (talk) 03:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The article is definitely moving in a good direction. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Garagepunk66: I managed to get ahold of the 3D World magazine article, although it turned out to be nothing more than a slight variation on a source already in use. Still, it contained enough new info to help me make some final additions and alterations. If you have any final comments, I'd love to hear them. Otherwise, thanks for all the help! I may go ahead and nominate this for GA, although I'm aware of your reservations. The production section certainly isn't "three-to-four times longer" than the plot, as you had advised, but the two sections are at least roughly the same length now. There are definitely GA-class articles shorter than this, and even if I get a no, there's nothing lost by having another editor weigh in.

I do have two remaining questions for you, both pertaining to neutrality - first of all, would you strongly oppose having the Accolades section reinstated? As I mentioned above, these are par for the course in film articles, and I feel that there's enough festival / awards information to warrant a separate section from general reception. Secondly, I'm tempted to use stronger language than "generally positive", when describing the film's reception in the lead. So far, no negative reviews have turned up, and while that may be somewhat expected for this type of film (if you're going to take the time to write a review for a six-minute student film, then that probably means you liked it), the current phrasing still seems like an overly tepid description for a multi-award winning film that's been called things like "technically astonishing", "a macabre feast for the eyes", and (newly added quote) "a gothic masterpiece". I find myself wondering whether it would be better to say something along the lines of, "Released to critical acclaim, the film has received accolades from several noted commentators..." or to simply remove the word "generally" and stick with "Critical reception has been favorable". --Jpcase (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I would not use the word "Accolades" to designate a section--"accolades" does not sound neutral. You could have an "Awards" section, where the awards are displayed in a list format. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)